R J CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 42(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

147 Total Alleged Bogus Rs. 1,34,45,643/- Rs. 38,64,574/- Purchases R. J. Corporation Profit Rate Applied 12.5% 12.5% Addition Made Rs. 16,80,705/- Rs. 4,83,072/- Assessed Income Rs. 18,81,540/- Rs. 8,25,020/- Penalty Order Date 15.03.2019 15.03.2019 Section of Penalty 271(1)(c) 271(1)(c) Penalty Levied

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

reassessed the income of the assessee at Rs.15,90,000 by making addition towards 25% gross profit on alleged bogus purchase made from hawala dealers. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,40,980 on the ground that the assessee has failed to offer any explanation with regard to the alleged bogus purchases made from

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

reassessed the income of the assessee at Rs.15,90,000 by making addition towards 25% gross profit on alleged bogus purchase made from hawala dealers. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,40,980 on the ground that the assessee has failed to offer any explanation with regard to the alleged bogus purchases made from

PUMPKIN PICTURES PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, THANE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

147 of the Act were initiated on the basis that despite receiving substantial contract receipts and professional and technical fees, the assessee has not filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. It is discernible from the record that even in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Pumpkin Pictures Private Limited

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

147 of the Act was passed on 19th march, 2015, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹17,81,070/- by making addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Reassessment order was challenged before the learned CIT (A) unsuccessfully and consequently, before the ITAT. As per the order of the ITAT dated 25th October, 2021, in ITA No.2947/Mum/2019

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

147 of the Act was passed on 19th march, 2015, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹17,81,070/- by making addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Reassessment order was challenged before the learned CIT (A) unsuccessfully and consequently, before the ITAT. As per the order of the ITAT dated 25th October, 2021, in ITA No.2947/Mum/2019

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER -41(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MR JAIPRAKASH DHIRAJLAL BARBHAYA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 21.03.2014 determining the income at ₹.2,46,52,190/-. While completing the reassessment the Assessing Officer treated the purchases of ₹.2,46,46,744/- made from various dealers as non-genuine on the basis of the information received from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that assessee has received accommodation entries

PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT SERVICES P. LTD( NOW KNOWN AS AS C.H. ROBINSON INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) P.LTD,),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

147 of the Act dated 13.07.2010. 4. Subsequently, the A.O has initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) and notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued. The assessee has filed the reply on 14.02.2013 explaining the facts and submitted the confirmation, name and address of the parties were the commission is paid

SAI SAMARTH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 1 , THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

u/s 153 r.w.s 153C of the Act. In the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2017) 80 taxmann.com 162 (Guj). The following finding has been given as under.:- “8. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record. Before dealing with the contentions, it would be relevant to reproduce Explanation 5 to Section 271

BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(CR)4, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31/03/2015. The assessee group, comprising-off of various entities, was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 on 30/04/2013 by DDIT (Investigation), Mumbai. The major allegations leveled against the assessee group were that the group had inflated their purchases by obtaining accommodation entries from bogus parties and had debited bogus consultancy

BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3) CEN RG 4, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31/03/2015. The assessee group, comprising-off of various entities, was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 on 30/04/2013 by DDIT (Investigation), Mumbai. The major allegations leveled against the assessee group were that the group had inflated their purchases by obtaining accommodation entries from bogus parties and had debited bogus consultancy

BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(CR)4, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31/03/2015. The assessee group, comprising-off of various entities, was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 on 30/04/2013 by DDIT (Investigation), Mumbai. The major allegations leveled against the assessee group were that the group had inflated their purchases by obtaining accommodation entries from bogus parties and had debited bogus consultancy

SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by lower authorities is therefore ordered to be deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.” 13 | P a g e I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 Thus, tribunal in assessee‟s own case for AY 2003-04 was pleased to delete penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by holding

VASWANI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 271(1)© as the said amount depicts the part of total income In respect of which particulars have been concealed and inaccurate particulars furnished........ The assessee itself mentioned that the assessee in question is an AOP and that the total income of the assessee gets allocated/transferred to its beneficiaries to their respective shares. In other words, the primary task

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) wherein returned income was accepted by the AO vide orders dated 06-07-2010 . The AO invoked penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) against the assessee for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income‟ by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.93,22,558/- which was earlier claimed by the assessee as an expenditure in its „books of account‟. 4. That as the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the amount of Rs.93

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income‟ by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.93,22,558/- which was earlier claimed by the assessee as an expenditure in its „books of account‟. 4. That as the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the amount of Rs.93

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

reassessment initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income‟ by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.93,22,558/- which was earlier claimed by the assessee as an expenditure in its „books of account‟. 4. That as the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the amount of Rs.93